John Leland, a Baptist preacher, “emerged a leader among the Commonwealth’s Baptists. He was instrumental in allying the Baptists with Jefferson and Madison in the bitter Virginia struggle to disestablish the Anglican Church and to secure freedom for religious dissenters.”^[1] According to L.H. Butterfield, Leland “was as courageous and resourceful a champion of the rights of conscience as America has produced.”^[2] Continue reading →

At Trinity, I lead a three-year men’s group called the Round Table. The first year focuses on Theology, the second on Ethics and the third year on Ideologies (Worldviews). Mike Tinney recently presented a paper on Law and Morality in The Roundtable in Ideology. Mike is an attorney by profession and has presented an excellent presentation of this subject that is well worth the read. Continue reading →

Below is a brief supportive comment that I wrote in response to an article by Peter Lumpkins on SBC Today entitled, Joe Carter, the ERLC and Division over Donald Trump (Parts 1 and 2).[1] Peter’s article responds to some general statements from the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) that continually positions those who may vote for Trump in a very dim light. In part two, he specifically analyzes the language of a particular article by Joe Carter (ERLC staffer) that juxtaposes the debate between the “Justice side” (those evangelicals who would vote for Trump) and the “Witness side” (those who would not). Unfortunately, the juxtaposition is unduly reductionistic and results in favoring the “Witness side” rather than equally presenting both. Lumpkins does a good job of pointing this out. Continue reading →

“On Friday, June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote to impose so-called ‘gay marriage’ on all 50 states.” While this decision did not change the nature of true marriage, for only God can do that, it did change the nature of legal marriage, and, tragically, in many minds that is a change in the nature of marriage.

The court’s ruling did considerably degrade the institution of marriage in our culture. Moreover, the court’s decision demonstrated one of the most pronounced, unguarded, and hubristic acts of legislating from the bench and disregard for the Constitution to date (demonstrated in their moral reasoning in the article below). Finally, certainly they set in place a ruling that will perpetuate the dismantling of religious freedom in America. I believe this may prove to be, over the coming decades, the most devastating consequence of the ruling. I think that this moralizing decision will be the genesis of untold clashes between believers and the courts, and, as it stands, a portentous signal regarding the kind of decisions that we might expect from the court.

Dr. Jerry Johnson, Ph. D., President and CEO of National Religious Broadcasters, has written two excellent articles on this ruling, Supreme Shame and Supreme Sham (and one more to come), and reading them both will be well worth your time. Particularly important to note is the biblical guidance for Christians from article one, and the moral, rather than legal, musings of the majority opinion in the second.

Glen Eyrie Notes, Session III quotes of scientists regarding homosexuality being genetic

• Francis S. Collins, one of the world’s leading genetic scientists, head of the human genome project, in his book, The Language of God, “Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality….indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.“[1] (italics added)
• Paul R. McHugh, M.D. – the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “(1) there is no scientific consensus on what homosexuality is, and the number of people who fit in the class…varies widely, depending on which definition of homosexuality is used and (2) there is no scientific consensus that homosexuality is exclusively or primarily genetic in origin.”[2]
• Homosexual activist and Researcher Dean Hamer (author of the Gay Gene) “We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors…”[3]
• Researcher N. Mitchel, “Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever predict who will be gay” (Mitchell, 1995).[4]
• Homosexual activist and researcher, Simon LeVay “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”[5]
• Mark Breedlove, “a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states: ‘These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain”’ (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801).[6]

[1] The Language of God, Francis Collins, p 260, http://www.narth.org/docs/nothardwired.html accessed 2/28/15.
[2] http://www.narth.com/#!cv/cdy2 accessed 2/5/15.
[3] Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 82, http://www.narth.org/docs/innate.htmlm, accessed 2-5-15.
[4] http://www.narth.org/docs/innate.htmlm http://www.scribd.com/doc/100219506/Is-There-a-Gay-Gene accessed 2-5-15.
[5] http://www.narth.org/docs/innate.htmlm http://www.scribd.com/doc/100219506/Is-There-a-Gay-Gene accessed 2-5-15.
[6] http://www.narth.org/docs/innate.html accessed 2/28/15.

Thank you for your willing and unselfish sacrifice for my undeserved freedom of religion in America!

It seems to me that most Americans, including many Baptists, are either unaware or have forgotten the extraordinary role that Baptists played in securing religious liberty in America. Many Americans who are aware seek to minimize Christianity’s role in general and Baptist’s role in particular. Then there are those whose lack of acknowledgement and appreciation sometimes manifests itself in admonishments to pastors, particularly Baptist pastors, against speaking out or being involved in politics. Some of these chastisements come from Baptist pews and pulpits. Let me mention one historical example of Baptist influence. Continue reading →

The loss of spiritual freedom for supposed physical freedom is reason enough to become informed, and to work and pray for the collapse of ObamaCare. Following are some of the ways that ObamaCare will further erode religious freedom in the U.S. Additionally, check out the “ObamaCare and its Mandates Fact sheet” at Alliance Defending Freedom.  This four page fact sheet summarizes the destructive impact of ObamaCare upon religious faith. An excellent resource.

1. The abortion mandate limits business owner’s First Amendment rights by requiring them to directly fund the death of innocent lives created in the image of God (Gen 9:6).
2. It advances the notion of only protecting religious freedom when all participants are adherents to the faith, thereby limiting the ministry of religious groups to the public (Matt 5:13ff).
3. Government control of healthcare requires working people to pay for those who could work, but choose not to, thereby encouraging laziness (2 Thess 3:10).
4. Government control of health care further erodes the need for personal responsibility and decision-making. This undermines the understood need for repentance and accepting the gospel, since both require a clear sense of personal responsibility (Rom 3:23, 10: 9-10).
5. It furthers the redefining of religious freedom under the First Amendment to merely meaning freedom of worship.
6. It expands the cost of running the spendthrift federal government, thereby reducing the amount of discretionary income for Christians to give to spiritual causes, to utilize private schools, or to live on one income.
7. It continues the transference of benevolence from the private sector to the federal government, thereby limiting the benevolent role and significance of religious groups (Matt 5:13ff).

Michael Tinney, a member of the 2013/2014 Roundtable in Ethics, explains the answer to the following question. Is the overthrow of an existing king, ruler, or government, if war or violence is necessary, ever biblically justifiable? Continue reading →